So how would any white paper back up audible perceptions?

So.... you understand that internet studies cannot be trusted, but you want me to send you one backing up my point?

I'll have a go at that one. Have you ever said, about your customers: "They don't know what they want, we tell them what they need." ? You see, "close to perfect" sound is pretty darn boring. The customer wants a great experience. Proven by Dr. DRE. So manufacturers use measurements to build a...

Two possibilities exist here, you have never heard a good tube amp, or you have tin ears. Those are actually the only two possibilities.

Again, sound beyond what humans can hear? What is the point?

Or perhaps just perceptions of what they hear at that moment.

So you aren’t discussing sound at all. Yet some say I am in the wrong forum. Things that make you go hmmmmm?

LOL, a Syke debate? Hilarious. Is it that hard to admit that measurement techniques are imperfect?

So finally we have a poster who refines his point. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I also know that measurement techniques are both imperfect and incomplete.

He trusts his eyes to read the tape, does he not?

As hominem attacks like yours are a clear indication you cannot debate your point if not an outright admission of defeat.

So it seems as though the folks pressing the purely scientific way of selecting electronic equipment allege that differences are imperceptible to the human ear/brain. If so, why bother? What is the point?

Yet the sole purpose of the peice of equipment is to produce sound pleasing to your ears. Crazy right?

So why do many tube amps measure worse than solid state, while sounding better?

Actually no, the question is whether or not one should trust ones own ears over some graph.

So you don’t trust yourself? Your own ears? You trust a graph more?

I guess you miss the irony in your insustence that your ears are unreliable judges of sound!

Engineers miss the mark though don’t they? Not all the time, but they do. I have heard engineered cds that would make anyone’s ears bleed. Likely because the engineer was making a line on a graph the goal.

Nothing dishonest al all about using your ears to evaluate how good something sounds. Seems like a lot of you are lost in the forest trying to find some trees. But that’s just me. Good point on my quoting skills, they suck.

On the contrary, I do understand the scientific method and I realize it will never be infallible until the measurement techniques are perfect. What we hear is the sole reason we record music, so it is clearly the goal to reach the ideal sound we actually hear. Making the goal a line on a graph...

Sorry , but that is simply not true. If you do not personally understand every step of the scientific process you are believing in, yet you believe it has merit that is absolutely blind faith. No magic involved, only actual listening perception.How can you seriously say that a peice the...

I agreeaudiophile magazine speak is often silly. Kind of like cigar reviews, hints of leather and cocoa with a nutty edge??????

Actually have had a very successful life. I attribute it , at least partially, to not being gullible. Science is useful, but to think it has an answer for everything is ignorant. Some put blind faith in something because somebody told them a scientific basis backed it up. If you accept that...

If responding to it , in your world, is ignoring it you are killin it. LOL